Stevie-B, I always thought that was a good idea, though I'd aim to send it on a one-way trip beyond the solar system. I say I used to like the idea until the Challenger disaster. Maybe one day we will be confident of every single rocket making it out of our atmosphere, but at this point, it could involve a huge risk if something bad happened before all that nuclear waste cleared our gravitational field.

Posted on: 2009/4/13 9:32

_________________
"... the salivary glands produce an estimated three liters of saliva per day."-- Pavlov

Just my opinion but I think, as a whole, wind farms are just a big impact in some of the more pristine areas of the state. I have worked on two wind farm projects and I for one, seen what was there and then after they were built, what wasn't there. Each of the projects I been on took thousands of acres of mountain top forests with unique vegetation and vistas that I am sure some folks have never seen. Now there are 200 foot, oil leaking, poor energy producing, steel eye sores. Not to mention 100' wide or wider access roads and for what. If we need wind farms to appease the "environmentalists" and the companies, then use the lands that we have already destroyed like reclaimed coal fields, which 9 times out of 10 are within a couple miles if not next to the farms. We have an energy crisis and it begins with conservation, not destroying what we have left of our landscapes here in the east.

They can encase the material in containers that can withstand an explosion of that magnitude. Have you seen the railcars currently used to ship this material around the country? They try to destroy them every way possible and can't.

Mo,

if it makes you happy, pick a large, nearby, inhabitable plant. It dosen't make much difference.

Now, I feel wind power is a nice supplement in our energy needs, but by no means the answer. My understanding is that they are very costly to build, maintain and not suitable in a lot places. I would think the time it would take to pay for itself wouldn't be seen in our lifetimes. I also think too many people are scared of the "nuclear" word! As mentioned above, it will take a mixture of our resources and better technology to meet our increasing energy needs.

ive only seen one comment on the de-forestation aspect. ive only heard that alot of trees need cleared to put those up......if they are put on a vastly open area then that is a null point. its all politics and money any way you look at it.

Posted on: 2009/4/13 14:45

_________________
If you have to ask why, you wouldn't understand....asking how shows some insight to your intellect...

You nailed it! For every tower over an acre or more of clearing is needed for a 2MW or larger tower, about 150 to 200'+ clearing radius. Then add in the miles of access roads that need certain turning radius and widths for the trailers. And then their is the incentives. We are led to believe that these projects are for the environment . . . renewable energy! Well the real incentives are loan subsidies, tax incentives and well truth be told credits for effluent violations, what the energy companies are producing at the plants and expelling into the air is made up by litigation towards "the advancement of renewable energy".

Posted on: 2009/4/13 15:14

_________________
Perhaps fishing is, for me, only an excuse to be near rivers.

I did a story on a wind farm in Somerset several years ago. It was on a farm,. They came in, put them up and the guy still farm the land all around them. No impact what so ever. Now even if you did do on a mountain top...do we really want to get into a deforestation debate between coal and wind...now this goes a little deeper than some ground vegetation. After this it won't grow back either.

I'm all for wind in its correct application--as an extra power supply.

They put in a pretty big wind farm near where I went to college...it apparently alleviated a large portion of energy costs from NYSEG (NY power, more or less) in the most impoverished counties in the state. Not sure how it affected their little economic sliver...

The wind farm was actually an attraction--people from nearby visited the dying town of Chateaugay. Again, don't know how it affected the local economy.

Is wind the end all of power issues? No, but it's better than a fair amount of alternatives. Every kind of power plant is going to affect the local ecosystem--there's no getting around that. Wind is a good way to use renewable energy in order to support established power plants already producing.

Back to my personal experience with the Chateaugay, NY wind farm: The land was purchased and I believe that nearby farmers were paid and will continue to be paid for the land that they owned. The land lease was said to be profitable beyond what that section of their land could have produced, and the farmers all seemed happy to lease/sell their land to the wind farm.

I guess it's all about political conviction for a lot of people. They would rather see the traditional power plants stick around than look for new alternatives simply because the "opposition" (ridiculous) supports it.

on a side note, Al Gore has been the worst thing that has ever happened to "environmental awareness." He has caused a lot of people to stop considering any sort of study on planetary health simply because he won't shut the hell up.

*edit* here's a link to the article about Noble Power from a couple years back when they first started the project: Chateaugay wind farm

You bring up a good point however I'd have to be a mad man to refute your argument. MTR is down right the most environmentally devastating activity we are STILL conducting in the pursuit of energy production. It needs to be stopped. So my stance, yeah, put up all the windmills we can if it would stop MTR. However, I still believe windmills are a band-aid on our energy crisis; they will never be efficient enough to replace the power plants.

Anyways, my experience and argument is that wind farm construction's current trend is that they are exceeding bad at site selection. The windmill companies are prying on satellite towns of where coal once was the industry. The land, which is a heavy tax burden on the owners, are subdued into believing that 'this is going to be the footprint of the project' and the money will be pouring into your pockets. The project always goes beyond its original footprint; it is the nature and scale of these projects. And the money, well, nuff said.

These towns that have eager tenants for the windmills, almost always have reclaimed mine spoils nearby where there is no trees and earth that probably will remain barren. Additionally, most of the time, these areas are still owned by the power companies i.e. Dominions, by the Allegany Powers, the same folks that are selling us the “energy” produced from windmills.

My point is that its strange how the investors (power companies etc) and the wind farm contractors (Gamesa) have no problem dealing with the lease agreements and cost/spending towards the infrastructure when they 1) Have their own land to do it on 2) the land has very poor habitat for anything (no endangered specie issues) 3) and I don’t think they would be receiving the opposition that they currently do (less lawyers).

The only part that makes sense to me is the money, it can due anything. But like someone once said, “You can’t put a price on the environment”.

Posted on: 2009/4/14 9:16

_________________
Perhaps fishing is, for me, only an excuse to be near rivers.

If site selection is the biggest problem that's a lot easier to fix than a lot of problems with other power sources. And I don;t think wind will replace anything on a grand scale. But it has proven it can reduce dependence on any one alternative. I think that is what people should be looking at is having more and better alternatives. I would think capitalists would be in favor of new investments, research and development and implementation of new money making businesses.

Site selection is an easy fix, its just there is no regulation to force them do so. If there is no opposition, then where and when will we say enough is enough, "you guys have to re-think" you need alternatives.

If I may, I think the industry needs to R & D solar power more than anything else. My professor once told us that the energy crisis will never be solved until we rethink the way our homes and buildings are constructed. He suggested self-sustaining buildings (SSD), which there are glimpses of, with schools and office buildings utilizing geothermal (yes it is another alternative-but no impact:)). Where roofs and siding where manufactured with solar cells and rechargeable batteries replaced overhead electric lines coming into the house. We are a long way from there and your right, we need alternatives.

Posted on: 2009/4/14 9:56

_________________
Perhaps fishing is, for me, only an excuse to be near rivers.